Andy McCarthy Smart But Disturbing Argument

Note, first of all, that I didn’t write “disturbing”—just disturbing. It really is. I think McCarthy is right, and someone needs to get to the bottom of it. At this juncture, the only people who could do that would be in the judiciary, if Trump should challenge the warrant—but I’m not sure how that could be done. The question comes down to a simple binary—yes or no:

So here’s Andy’s argument—follow the link for the entire article which is totally worth reading:

Trump raid not about classified documents — it’s about Jan. 6

…

The ongoing proceedings implicating Trump – in particular, the Justice Department’s investigation and the House January 6 committee probe – seem geared toward undermining his capacity to seek the presidency again in 2024. Obviously, then, there is speculation that DOJ may be mobilizing now in order to trigger the Section 2071 disqualification.

This is the statute cited by Clintonite dirtbag legal operative Marc Elias. But I’ve been listening to other legit lawyers this morning who have pointed out what Andy does below—that 2071 CANNOT prevent Trump from running again. Which makes one wonder whether Elias’ tweet is a bit of misdirection to distract from the main point that Andy is making.

I doubt that. The Justice Department well knows that the qualifications for a presidential candidate are set out in the Constitution. They may not be altered by statute, precisely because the Framers did not want the executive branch to be dominated by the legislature, as would happen if Congress could disqualify incumbent or potential presidents simply by passing a law. The Constitution’s qualifications for the presidency are minimal – one must be over 35 and a natural-born citizen. Being a felon is not a disqualification, so even crimes potentially far more serious than mishandling classified information are not a bar to seeking the presidency.

Moreover, the Constitution also prescribes the basis for disqualifying a person from seeking the presidency or other federal office: conviction by the Senate on an impeachment article voted by the House. Again, what is prescribed by the Constitution may not be altered by a mere statute. To trigger disqualification, Congress would have to impeach and convict Trump; it cannot be done by criminal prosecution.

The Justice Department obviously used the potential classified information as a pretext to obtain a warrant so it could search for what it is really looking for: evidence that would tie Trump to a Capitol riot offense – either a violent crime, such as seditious conspiracy to forcibly attack a government installation (which is highly unlikely), or a non-violent crime, such as conspiracy to obstruct the January 6 joint session of Congress to count electoral votes, or conspiracy to defraud the government.

But the whole point of the Fourth Amendment provision—no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.—is that pretext applications are not to be allowed. We need to see the application, the affidavit supporting the warrant, and we need a searching inquiry into the basis for “probable cause” that was presented.

As previously explained, I believe it would foolhardy for the Biden Justice Department to indict a former president on such debatable non-violent crime charges. That is especially so when it comes to a former president who could be the 2024 Republican nominee, since such charges would fuel the perception that Democrats are using the Justice Department as a political weapon.

That said, let’s assume Attorney General Merrick Garland contemplates bringing such conspiracy charges against Trump. If so, DOJ would need to prove that Trump clearly knew that the 2020 election was not stolen by fraud, yet willfully persisted in deceptive schemes to prevent Congress from counting the state-certified votes that would establish Biden’s victory.

This is why, in recent weeks, the Justice Department has aggressively sought evidence from advisers close to Trump. In June, it executed search warrants on both former Justice Department attorney Jeffrey Clark, who sought to help Trump convince contested states of the false premise that DOJ believed Biden’s victory might be fraudulent; and constitutional law scholar John Eastman, architect of the legal strategy by which Trump unsuccessfully sought to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to discount electoral votes from key states won by Biden.

About a week ago, DOJ issued grand jury subpoenas to Trump White House counsel Pat Cipollone, and Cipollone’s deputy Patrick Philbin, who were aware of and reportedly pushed back against Trump’s schemes to undo the election result.

So, what Garland is obviously looking for is a Trump confidante who will say that Trump stated: “Sure, I know this fraudulent election stuff is pure banana oil, but I intend to keep pushing it to prevent Congress from counting state certified electoral votes.” Really, nothing short of such a statement would work in terms of establishing proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, that’s not to say that Garland is above bringing a bad faith indictment—that is, knowing that he lacked sufficient evidence for a conviction—even one that might be dismissed before trial. Such an indictment would have the advantage, from a purely political standpoint, that it would be directly relevant to a campaign for election. It would suggest to a, hopefully, gullible public that, convicted or not, a Trump candidacy would be open to plunging the country into turmoil.

That tricky part, of course, is that the Zhou regime has already done that, and the establishment knowingly did that with its coup against Trump. Dating back to when the Deep State and the Ruling Class first practiced to weave its tangled web of deception, otherwise known as the Russia Hoax. The country still hasn’t forgotten that.